|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your best explanation is You don't know
There is is no need for me to explain nature better than evolution that's not the point. All I need to do is show very good evidence, of even indirectly by design. I've done that Since you admit you have no answers, what makes my investigation invalid as science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes I know verbatim what evidence is, do you?
Maybe you could provide actual evidence that the conclusion of evolution, soley natural causes is sustainable Can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
A response to post 309
Modulous Do you have direct evidence of how this very detailed process you describe started Yes or no You say the state of affairs of evolution is irelevantWell there you go My science for answers to unwittnessed events is indirect evidence based on available evidence Why is this not methodical in nature, even if it's not elaborate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No not admitting that until you show why indirect evidence is not valid, where design shows they are
Can you do that All empirical reasoning is science If we don't use a distorted version of the word science like you do What totality of evidence you idiot. You already admitted you don't have an answer as to the Why of things Your totality of evidence amounts to no answers I don't need supernatural entites to demonstrate your contradictory position Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It does if we don't use your limited secular definition of the word science, yes it does
You've perverted the word so explanations of causes can have no meaning and are therefore irelevant
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Once again Jar, the natural logical conclusion of evolution, IS soley natural causes, whether you state it or not
Yes there are other ways to find causes other than natural causes. There is good evidence of design in natural things The methodology of determining this follows very specific scientific reasoned principles It's concfusions are as valid as any of those posited by evolutions conclusions Or you are willing to face up to your conclusions, why they must exist and how you arrive at them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But Modulous were not talking about evolution were talking about the conclusion evolution posits
There is no such thing as superscience anymore than there is anything called metaphysics, don't be silly it's just science You say it's a wash. Yaaaaa think?Unless we are reasonable correct in searching where the evidence leads. Sorry for the idiot comment but really Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You assume science has to be elaborate in all cases.
Can't somethings just be simple and have valid conclusions without huge involved processes Nearly everything we do everyday Involves science simple to great
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is no such thing as astrology, it's a product of the mind it does not involve actual properties
By using the conclusion evolution posits, by any investigative standard, I am showing the science of design in creation. Now design can stand on its own merit, but by comparison evolution posits a conclusion using a method called indirect evidence. So since we use the same method it must be science It's as good as an apology I can give if you are going to stand by your statement Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No astrology is not science because the word has to have meaning against something in reality. It's a made up word. Design corresponds to something in reality, It's meaning can be tested
You see that's your problem, you can't extricate yourself from the FACT that the conclusion of evolution IS Sole y natural causes. Saying it's irelevant or that your not saying that doesn't help So it must be established some way and the way is indirect evidence. Its your baggage deal with it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well that was almost an attempt at my argument. So in an evasive way you don't deny you can't extricate yourself from the logical conclusion of Soley Natural cause. I'll take that as an admission of defeat at least in that point.
Superevolution doesn't exist and it doesn't help your doctrine. Astrologys conclusions are not testable by empirical evidence even by indirect evidence, unlike the theory of a designer Another thing that amuses me about you fellas is that You walk around implying that we made up that the conclusion of evolution is soley natural causes, them get mad at us for brining it up But it is Simply what it it Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, I agree with you that the intricacies in nature show intelligent design and just saying that should be enough to point people to that fact, but can't you also try describing that intricacy since everybody is screaming at you to do so? They'll just say evolution can account for it of course, but they can't prove it, they have no evidence that it's possible, they'll just say it anyway. Meanwhile what's wrong with pointing to, say "irreducible complexity" in living things as evidence that they were designed? Faith thanks much for your support. You are an excellent polemist and your knowledge is very extensive. I've been doing this for a lot of years now and you have to understand, these fellas are not going to ever see design because they have been taught that truth does not really exist and that absolute truth certainly does not They also have learned a way of understanding evidence that is contrary to any thinking person and reason This is why I have pushed the obvious contradiction in the evolutionary theory, of its conclusion You've noticed Thierry answers, It doesn't matter, I don't care, its irelevant, etc. By demonstrating these issues you identify where the real problem exists Evolution by solely natural causes is not something they can ignore, it's an unavoidable conclusion of their "evidence". It demonstrates that the evidence that supports design, is the same type as thiers. But they will wrangle every way to get out of this as you have seen But please continue your side it reinforces the main argument Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If evolution is something you insist has the logical conclusion of 'Solely Natural Causes' then I don't accept it. I do accept something, and that something doesn't conclude 'Solely Natural Causes'. So tell me what I should call that something if 'superevolution' doesn't work for you. I not only insist on it , it is an irresistible conclusion. There is no such thing as superevo, it's just an investigation called science. Your problem would be the same, if you rename it
Are you saying that in order to be science the conclusions need to be testable? OK, then. Let's see your tests for the design theory. Modulous. When you test properties in the natural world, you are not testing it's source. So to brag about your experiments and how complicated they are, only demonstrates how it works not where it came from or how it started. I can test my hypothesis of design by examining detailed intricate order in nature, you just get all it'll more involved, but it doesn't prove your conclusion. For this you need the same type of evidence of a designer, indirect evidence. I can test design the same way you examine the world. You have no superior standard for determine evidence. If I'm making things up please demonstrate Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Perhaps next you could tell us what this "obvious contradiction" is. Yeah not a problem. Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion. When you can extricate yourself from this problem or let me know what type of evidence you used for this necessary conclusion, it may cease to be a contradiction Last time I'll point it out to you, unless you have a solution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
don't think you understand the significance of indirect evidence and how science using indirect evidence is different than what you are inferring. With your science you don't test the conclusion of evolution, which is Soley Natural causes, you test only what is going on. To test it conclusion you would need indirect evidence like us So your doing the right thing, or your not doing science. Which is it Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024